Strategy executive chairman Michael Saylor took to social media on Sunday to detail his \u201c110 reasons\u201d why a proposed temporary fork to limit non-monetary transactions on the Bitcoin network, or BIP-110, is a bad idea.<\/p>\n
Bitcoin Improvement Proposal-110 was introduced<\/a> in December 2025 to stop nonfungible token-like Ordinals inscriptions and other arbitrary data from spamming the network and to preserve BTC\u2019s main use as a peer-to-peer cash system.<\/p>\n In a roughly 3,700 word post on X.com<\/a>, the man in control of the largest Bitcoin (BTC) corporate treasury made a case for what he said are \u201cneutral rules, hard consensus, open markets, and permissionless innovation.\u201d<\/p>\n Source: <\/em>Michael Saylor<\/em><\/a> on X.com<\/em><\/p>\n \u201cMany Bitcoiners I respect support BIP 110. They want to keep validation accessible, protect node operators from unwanted costs and content, preserve affordable payments, and keep Bitcoin focused on sound money rather than general-purpose data storage. Those are serious concerns. I share the objectives. I disagree about the remedy,\u201d Saylor said. He added:<\/p>\n \u201cThis article critiques the proposal, not the people behind it. I assume good faith. Bitcoin is strongest when we can disagree vigorously without mistaking allies for enemies.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n As of 12 p.m. ET, on Sunday, the post had been viewed 879,000 times, with 692 replies and 852 retweets.<\/p>\n BIP-110 is one of the more notable protocol-level disputes in the Bitcoin development community since the Blocksize Wars between 2015 and 2017, when ecosystem participants debated whether it was worth risking a chain split to raise the block size limit for scalability.\u00a0<\/p>\n The proposal was introduced by pseudonymous Bitcoin developer \u201cDathon Ohm\u201d with the support of Ocean protocol founder Luke Dashjr. Opponents include Blockstream CEO Adam Back.<\/p>\n Related: <\/strong><\/em>Bitcoin nodes running BIP-110 crosses 2% as spam wars heat up<\/strong><\/em><\/a><\/p>\n To be sure, BIP-110 won\u2019t be activated unless 55% of Bitcoin nodes validating blocks are in support of the proposal across a Bitcoin block \u201cperiod.\u201d<\/p>\n In the last period, period number 475 between block 955,584 and 957,599, only 1% of blocks were in support.<\/p>\n The dispute comes at a time when Ordinals activity is at near all-time lows, with fewer than 10,000 <\/a>Ordinals inscribed into the Bitcoin blockchain on a daily basis over the last month, down from the more than 400,000 seen during its peak in August 2023.<\/p>\n Change in daily Ordinals inscriptions since December 2022. <\/em> Bock has previously criticized BIP-110, describing<\/a> it as a \u201cquest to police other people.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n He said Bitcoin\u2019s decentralization should mean \u201cyou can\u2019t impose your views on others,\u201d calling it incompatible with BTC\u2019s cypherpunk ethos of permissionless, censorship-resistant money.<\/p>\n Dashjr and other BIP-110 supporters have called<\/a> Ordinals-driven bloat a \u201cserious threat\u201d to the network, prompting the need for an imminent fix.<\/p>\n They have also argued BIP-110 wouldn\u2019t cause<\/a> a chain split, as many fear, while adding that the BIP-110 fork imposes a temporary one-year limit and thus wouldn\u2019t invalidate fee-paying transactions over the long term.<\/p>\nLittle certainty on BHP-110 approval<\/h2>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/s3-images.ctmedia.io\/media\/content\/screenshot-2026-07-19-65926-pm.png\")
<\/figure>\n
Source: <\/em>Dune Analytics<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n